In the British peerage, a royal duke is a member of the British Royal Family, entitled to the titular dignity of Prince and the style of His Royal Highness who holds a dukedom. Dukedoms are the highest titles in the British roll of peerage and the holders of these particular dukedoms are Princes of the Blood Royal. The holders of the dukedoms are royal not the titles themselves. They are titles created for legitimate sons and male-line grandsons of the British monarch, usually upon reaching their majority or marriage. The titles can be inherited but cease to be called "royal" once they pass beyond the grandsons of a monarch. As with any peerage, once the title becomes extinct, it may subsequently be recreated by the reigning monarch at any time.

To be fair, I think Hoppe was writing about pre-parliamentary monarchies. He would characterize Great Britain as a democracy.

That said, I entirely agree with Evan that one should not conflate democracy with freedom. Democracy is just a means to install a ruler (others include hereditary rule, and seizing control violently). In contrast, freedom is an end in and of itself. Because people confuse democracy with freedom, citizens in a democracy are like the proverbial frog in boiling water, not noticing that their freedoms are being taken away one degree at a time.

It's not the same as freedom, but a system where people have a voice is much better than one where everyone is ruled by a dictator that is determined by their bloodline. The idea that people voting is more ridiculous than a familial dictatorship is ludicrous.

And btw, I understand the Royal family has no real power now. They were overthrown and replaced with democracy. So were the English more free then or now? How about the Americans that revolted against the crown?

First, you are conflating the old monarchies with dictators, which is not what Hoppe was talking about.

Second, that the "people have a voice." In what sense? In the aggregate they might choose their rulers, but so what? It's what those rulers do subsequently that determines how much freedom you have. Hoppe's point was that the old monarchs had a lower time preference than the rulers in democracies have, and thus, considering the nation as an "asset," make better economic decisions. It's like asking, who would make better decisions about a property, the landlord or the tenant?

Another benefit to a monarchy is that there is a single head of power unlike the deep state with its endless bureaucrats. This makes revolution much easier as a king has to worry about losing his head more than an agency chief.

The crown was at a whole what, 3% tax on the Americans? Rothbard and Hoppe both have plenty of good to say about the American Revolution, but Hoppe’s writing about Monarchy vs. democracy is great.And how do Americans have a choice? A choice of the chosen to choose from?The only choice we really have is choosing not to participate.

Voting also creates the imprimatur and the psychological belief in the minds of the voters, that consent has been granted to government for whatever policies it has implemented or will do...and also, promotes the belief that "we are all the government" by dint of our participation (voting) in the process, however ineffectual and illusory that impact is.

Democracy is the weaponization of politics. Paul Hansen and I disagree on many many things, but the only reason that it becomes a conflict is due to the zero-sum nature of national democracy. Otherwise, we’d each be free to live and let live.

He’s also entirely correct that it’s unfair that people get to immigrate and then have a say in how he lives his life. The problem with this analysis is that it’s too narrow: it’s unfair for ANYONE, no matter where they come from, to dictate how others are to be treated by the state.

The idea that monarchs made better economic decisions is not true. When Rome was somewhat democratic, it thrived. ( of course there is a lot that was wrong with it too). But when it became a monarchy, it became a hellish place, long-term. Monarchies also stifled science, which generally advanced more in democratic societies like Greece and pre-emperor Rome, then was stifled in the empires. The dark ages was definitely not caused by democracy, however monarchy definitely played a very critical role.

One possibility often overlooked is that in a PPS something very similar to the sorts of formalities we see among the European aristocracy might be the end result of markets driving communities of free and peaceful people and their various dispute resolution organizations to reliably maintain security over time. Hopefully without all the pageantry though.